AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 139 To : Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members Regarding: Laurel Way Project and Appeat of Final EIR From: Kristi and Rick G�xinon 3666 Glenwood Av., Redw City, 94062 (650}SSb-9523 rguinon@pacbell.net As a family that has lived in this part of Redwood City for 13 years, we would like to state that we are OPPOSED to the Laurel Way Project as well as ANY application for a Planned Deve�opment Permit for this area. Furthermore, we are in favor of the Staff Reports recommendation �o grant the appeal of the FEIR, which was certified by �e Planning Cornrnission on August 24, 2010. We are in favor of granting this appeal not only for the reasons listed in the report issued to you by your staff on 8/22/2411 but a�so for multiple other issues that were detailed in the EIR appeal that we filed on August 31, 2010 following this certification and were not addressed directly in the staffreport. First of all, we find it very concerning that there is an answer or mi�igation measure to evez�y potential significant impact that was stated in this report that reportedly can reduce the environmental impact to a less that significant concern. These conclusions appear to be very subjective in nature since the phrase "to the extent feasible" is a reaccurring therne through out the mitigatian rneasures in the FEIR. This suggests tl�at if the project gaes forward that there is a very good likelihood that issues will arise that may not be correctab�e to a less than significant effect. This seems like a very irresponsib�e and negligent approach that a city would accept an EIR with these types of staternents as adequate especially for a project of this size and steepness. It is evident from the many comments and concerns presented iz� this report from residents on Glenwood Ave, Highland Ave, Vista Ct. amd Laurel Way that this project wouid present a more than significant effect on there neighborhood from concerns of aesthetics, geotechnical, hydrology, traffic and noise. I find it difficult to swallow that there is not one negative impact with regards to a project of this size and steep elevarion. Even in the most perfect scenarias, nothing is without risk or a negative impact. We also agree with previous comments frorn Rick Jarvis tliat stated it is unusual for a city to agree to certification of an EIR without a project on file. Since this development occurred after our appeal, we also hope thie Council will �ake this new development into cansideration as further evidence that the EIR should not be certified at this time and the applicant should have a project on file before this is done. As of now ��e no longer have an idea as to what is intended to be developed by the applicaz�zt in this area. Since three lots whose owners did not join this application have been identified, the question now is how much iand will be develaped since it should be less than the 5.1 acres that has been used in the past and will the applicant still try to develop 18 homes now on a smaller amount of property? So as to the staff report that suggests that now the effects might actua�ly be less since less lots are invotved, we disagree since we feel the applicant will likely want to build the same amount of houses in a smaller area which should raise more red flags or concerns. The applicaa�t has made it will known both in public comment and